tv [untitled] February 6, 2011 1:30am-2:00am PST
meeting adjourned. impossible. announcer: when you open a book, you can explore new lands... [bird screeches] meet new friends, and discover new adventures. there are amazing possibilities when you open your mind to reading. [roar] you can log onto he library of congress website and let the journey begin.
captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor campos: good morning. happy new year to all of you. welcome to the january 11, 2011 transportation plans and programs committee. we have been joined by the committee vice chair, commissioner chu, and the newly appointed commissioner wiener. we welcome commissioners chiu
and avalos, who are en route. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> item #2, approval of minutes of the december 7, 2010 meeting. supervisor campos: we need a motion. can we take that without objection? is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. we have a motion from commissioner chu. madam clerk, please call in #3. >> citizens advisory committee report, information item. supervisor campos: thank you. good morning. >> there is no report today due to the holiday schedule. there was no meeting in december
and they reported to you at the last meeting. for the benefit of those watching, there will be up coming vacancies next month. we will elect the annual chair and vice chair at the january meeting. supervisor campos: great. any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. madam clerk, item no. 4. >> item #4. recommend allocation of $35,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, to the department of public works for construction of a bus bulb at balboa street and 37th avenue, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule. this is an action item. supervisor campos: good morning. >> good morning. this item begins on page 11 of your packet. $35,000 in prop k funds will help the department of public works fully fund the bus on the northeast corner of 37th avenue
and bigelow street. public works already has funds for the southwest corner. for the benefit of those watching, it is widening the sidewalk at the transit stop. primarily it is a safety issue. in this case it is also intended to serve as a traffic calming measures for vehicles making right turns. this is good leveraging for prop k funds. part of the larger balboa street skate improvement project, $2.5 million funded by about half of a million sources. the biggest of which are a safety mark -- safety earmarked that we received for work like this and prop k funds with over $800,000 that the board
previously allocated for the street in the area. the larger project from 34th to 39th on balboa street, you have seen this project before. approved by the privatization program for the bus transit category. initially the transportation agency was the sponsor. in order to achieve construction efficiency they have agreed to let public works sponsor the project. advertise that the end of the month as part of a larger streetscape effort in an attempt to complete construction in december with most of it done in the summer to avoid conflicts with nearby schools. several around the community of reach district supervisors are on board. i would be happy to answer any questions. i would make note that we have the project manager here if you have any questions. supervisor campos: colleagues,
questions for staff? i have a couple of questions. are there any similar requests that we can expect in the near future? >> i do not think that we have any on back. -- deck. supervisor campos: how did we get to this specific request? how was the process through which you determined when to ask for this kind of funding? why not here through other places? >> good question. this project was a list of projects included in the five- year privatization program with large projects like the bus stop transit projects as well as small tps type improvements like this one. in terms of timing, this would
make two sponsors that can come to the authority to make a response for a project. the main criteria that we look at besides eligibility is that the project is fully funded and ready to go. we do not have funds sitting around. this was a criticism a while ago. public works tried to position us for the jobs on main street. anticipating another stimulus bill from the federal government. that did not materialize. we have switched gears. supervisor campos: is there anyone from dpw that can provide more information on that? >> in terms of the timing? supervisor campos: the process. >> the other sources are the face to earmark prop k through the general fund. supervisor campos: welcome to the transit programs committee. >> happy new year to you. i think that i would just add to
maria's comments that the balboa street project was already moving forward. mta already has a possible calming project, so the timing is right to combine with the streetscape project. i am not sure if that -- supervisor campos: are there any similar requests you see coming our way? >> in terms of larger projects? i am not sure about the bus bowls, those are mostly in the traffic calming mta projects. we did receive federal grants for four projects that were recently program. second street, marina, green, and -- why am i blanking on the last one?
we also received a grant that lasted through the fiscal year. those are so loved the projects. supervisor campos: any questions, colleagues? is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion? supervisor chu: i actually had a quick question for dpw. i know that in terms of the projects you have been working on, there is one on 19th avenue. is that something you could provide to our office? >> good morning, my name is mary [unintelligible] dpw. the only update that i have is that there is still discussions in terms of the radius and design of the bus bowl. it is sort of pending. supervisor chu: the waiting is
for venice to finish before 19th avenue? >> the idea is that the venice project will take precedence over the bus bowl design. that is likely to occur in the spring. supervisor chu: thank you. i see the executive director of the transportation authority wanted to chime in. good morning. >> let me take a second to welcome -- welcome commissioner wiener to the board as well. i wanted to speak to your question about process, emphasizing the fact that even these small allocations are not simply floating out there. they are part of the five-year program that this committee reviews and approves of a periodic basis. you may recall that there was an entire slew of them over the
last nine months. each one has listings of projects. this was one of those in that particular category, the only distinction that we would make is that it was originally listed as mta and is now being done by dpw. that is the clearest picture of the process that we have. a five-year look at what those projects are. in each of the 22 categories, vehicle safety, traffic signals, etc., you get to see those ahead of time. obviously there are variations, but it is an organized process to get you to an outlook for a five-year product. as far as the commissioners comment on 19th avenue, there is more information that our deputy for planning can provide on that.
supervisor campos: thank you. good morning. >> good morning. [unintelligible] deputy for planning. we are leading the project as the dpw mentioned. we are holding off on further negotiations of the design exceptions to reach agreement with caltrans until we have resolved similar questions and we hope to resolve those very soon, as they mentioned earlier. supervisor campos: this is an action item. if we could have a motion? can that be taken without objection? thank you. madam clerk, please call item no. 5. >> item #5. update on the development of the bay area's first sustainable communities strategy. supervisor campos: this is an information item? >> that is right. [unintelligible] again. i am pleased to present this on
your memo, page 33. what is the sustainable community strategy? it begins through the reference of senate bill 375 passed in 2008. landmark legislation that required california communities to plan land use transportation environmental issues in an environmental fashion. very much targeting greenhouse gas emissions policy in california, very innovative and pioneering and is being watched closely on a national level. this legislation requires the creation of a new transportation plan and a sustainable community strategy with regional housing allocation in the same process. this slide talks more about each of the goals of the sustainable community strategy, a regional
planning process. reducing greenhouse gas emissions. in the bay area we have a goal of 15% reduction by 2035. this actually will result in a net production of greenhouse gas emissions on an absolute basis by 2035. we are hoping that future [unintelligible] will continue to make inroads into that goal. the second point is that the strategy to hide the strategy at all income levels is a specific mandate of the legislation. the income coming from the valley should be avoided, providing enough housing at all income levels to reduce housing demand. thirdly, it needs to be consistent with rotp. it does encompass $200 billion of transportation investments that are reallocated every three to four years. all of these need to be coordinated in a single process.
the regional housing allocation is another process that typically has been happening in parallel but not necessarily in coordination with rtp, requiring everything to be done at the same time. the allocation process is started at the state level, the association of government with each jurisdiction. san francisco has always done their fair share of providing planning and affordable housing, particularly the lowest income housing. this process is really a way for us to all link housing with transportation. particularly using the transportation investment as an incentive to bring other communities into the fold. you can see that i have highlighted policy questions. how well does this incentivize local planning for housing,
especially affordable housing? with regards to the rptp, because there is $200 billion of investment, it does get decided every few years. connecting them in our view is a major opportunity and regional staff as a acknowledged that while it will be difficult as it is the first time it has been done, business as usual has not been to link the policies. updated every few years, the condition management agency ordinates on behalf of san francisco with different modes, operators, and agencies participating in the process. our plan update is the major input into the rtp on behalf of san francisco, dovetailing the process this year. the rtp must identify a 25 year constrained program of projects.
the policy question is to what extent mtc will be directed discretionary transportation funding towards projects that support scs goals unaccommodating growth of housing, reducing ghg's. there are four major stages on the next slide. the first is the stage that we are in right now. you will see this as a separate handout, the schedules on your desk. what would we be like with unconstrained funding? if money were no object and other constraints were not really to be considered? what would that look like for the region? up next spring there will be a detail that learned from that initial scenario about how close we can get to those goals with specific housing projects that
are financially constrained on the transportation side, what would those scenarios look like? in the fall this will remote -- this will lead to the preferred scs scenario feeding right into the rtp environmental review with final integration getting done next year. mtc hopes to adopt the combined scs in april of 2013. focusing for a moment on the initial vision scenario, next slide, this will reflect jurisdictional input into the process on where they expect to grow and what kind of growth they expect to implement. where should the growth be? if there is not enough growth based on voluntary funding, we will go ahead and distribute the rest of the growth. development areas in san francisco like the eastern neighborhoods and a bit to the
south, last time around when we added up the growth with local jurisdictions, it only added up to 50% of the need in the region. where does the rest of the 50% of the housing go? the staff will take an initial pass at that, distributing growth where they think it should be most sustainably be placed. the initial visions scenario will show much how much, -- will show how much travel results in this with greenhouse gas limited as a result of the initial vision. what did we learn about this in terms of transportation performance member -- transportation performance measures and the other things we are trying to achieve? in sampras's dropping -- in san francisco we plan to add 170,000 new population, 150,000 new jobs in the eastern neighborhoods primarily. this is a planning department
graphic that will show where these new households are expected to go by 2035. job growth expected this year in the city, san francisco is a in a great position to plan the redevelopment agency for the entire city family, doing a great job planning for growth. we have a great look at what growth should look like but now we need other resources. the funding to carry infrastructure, to maintain and build up streets and roads. the next slide talks about the detailed scenarios. identifying specific projects that basically compete for funding. mtcaddac has given us a call for projects, something we are planning on getting more information on in the march and april time crime -- time frame. specific projects that we would
like to submit to the regional association, doubling as the countywide plan called for projects. an opportunity to bring up all of those projects to be identified again with test planning and identifying new projects for the committee to the authority is leading our input into the scs, the overall coordination. chair mirkarimi has been been two meetings of department heads and other elected officials, including representatives of the mtc and air district. i understand you will be considering their own roles as to who their liaison will be to those organizations. it is a banner year for mtc, abag, and other organizations on this initiative. the planning commission will be
meeting in january to give their input. there is a regular staff level -- directors working group planned. in terms of public outrage, we have mentioned this. -- out of reach, we have mentioned this. we anticipate doing town halls to get the word out and get people involved so they understand what this regional plan is about, how it relates to their county-wide plan and neighborhoods. here is a snapshot which tells the story of our advocacy. in terms of population, san francisco accounts for about 11% of the region. we account for 16% of the region's employment. however, portrait and, we account for 17%. however, when you contrast that with the amount of funding we
received in the region, in the last our tepee, we had 9% of the local streets and roads money. we had 50% of the region's transit money compared to 68% of the trip ends that we carry. from a strictly numbers basis, we are letting them know that we are doing more than our fair share in terms of growth. we expect the region will support san francisco in terms of providing for transportation, not only infrastructure but new maintenance funds. here are some of the major message is we have been sending to the region. we have been sending letters to several agencies and department heads. maintenance resources need to be prioritized for jurisdiction to are currently carry the bulk of the department's trips. we also want to make sure the
rhna affordable housing targets are also being considered as amendments policy is considered. in terms of expansion, no surprise, if we are going to be growing by 160,000 new jobs, 170,000 people, we will need to update our transportation. in terms of regional discretionary funding, we emphasize the need for cost- effective transportation improvements. the link back to land use policy and how we are planning for the region's growth in an affordable and equitable manner. thank you. commissioner campos: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions for staff? commissioner wiener? we want to welcome commissioner scott wiener to his first meeting of the transportation authority. commissioner wiener: i hope i do
not ask any question that i should not get the answer to. anyway -- thank you for the presentation. this is critical to the future of san francisco. i have a couple of questions. you said abag will distribute any excess -- again, forgive me if i should not ask this -- but what happens if we provide 50%? what happens if they request another 30,000 units? >> in the past, san francisco and abag have not agreed, but we are in convergence now. but they won in san francisco, we are planning to do that. in other communities, we are working with them. there is always some back-and-
forth among jurisdictions. perhaps in contra costa and not in another area. ultimately, abag will adopt these numbers. the jurisdiction will have their representatives advocate for them. commissioner wiener: is there any enforcement mechanism at all? >> we always ponder this question. enforcement tends to be more on the carrot side, which is where it will have -- why we have this delinking of the housing investment. the implication being if you are not doing these things, which you will see in our policy approach, if you did not provide your fair share of affordable housing, maybe you should not get as much maintenance funding this time around.
other than that, i believe the state enforces -- they can bring a suit against communities, for example, that did not have the conforming housing element with the region. i am not sure what the actual consequences are. commissioner wiener: is this because how of their lack of space, the political reality? geary, we hope, is going to get brt, so there would be more transit capacity. -- vrt, so there would be more transit capacity. >> we have looked at some of the services available to support that. i should note, not all of our
planned housing and jobs will happen in this area. 90% of the growth is anticipated here, so 10% approximately is going to happen elsewhere. there are discussions now in the masonic site. there are examples like that, where development and growth are still expected to happen, in places that can support it. commissioner wiener: are there any significant opportunities on the west side other than parker sai merced? >> occasionally, you will see proposals come up in the major corridors. for the most part, there have been a consensus to look at which neighborhoods they are going to strengthen. current make, we are working on making mission day as little as possible.
commissioner wiener: thank you. commissioner campos: thank you very much. any other questions? why don't we open this up to the public. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i know this is an information item, so there is no action. for those of you watching, graduates of a certain law school have a majority of this committee, and that was purely accidental. madam clerk, please call the next item. >> introduction of new items. this is an information item. commissioner chiu: colleagues, at this time, i would ask the ta to do a study to look at the issues of pedestrian safety. i would like them to come back next month to look at this. every day, on average, there are two or more